They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, distrusted factory workers, and were on the watch for supporters of the dreaded British system of government. Jeffersonian democracy persisted as an element of the
Democratic Party into the early 20th century, as exemplified by the rise of
Jacksonian democracy and the three presidential candidacies of
William Jennings Bryan. Its themes continue to echo in the 21st century, particularly among the
Libertarian and
Republican parties.[2][3]

At the beginning of the Jeffersonian era, only two states (Vermont and Kentucky) had established universal white male suffrage by abolishing property requirements. By the end of the period, more than half of the states had followed suit, including virtually all of the states in the
Old Northwest. States then also moved on to allowing popular votes for presidential elections, canvassing voters in a more modern style. Jefferson's party, known today as the Democratic-Republican Party, was then in full control of the apparatus of government—from the state legislature and city hall to the White House.

"Jeffersonian democracy" is an umbrella term and some factions favored some positions more than others. While principled, with vehemently held core beliefs, the Jeffersonians had factions that disputed the true meaning of their creed. For example, during the
War of 1812 it became apparent that independent state militia units were inadequate for conducting a serious war against a major country. The new Secretary of War
John C. Calhoun, a Jeffersonian, proposed to build up the Army. With the support of most Republicans in Congress, he got his way.[6] However, the "Old Republican" faction, claiming to be true to the Jeffersonian
Principles of '98, fought him and reduced the size of the Army after Spain sold Florida to the U.S.[7]

Historians characterize Jeffersonian democracy as including the following core ideals:

The core political value of America is
republicanism—citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.[8]

Jeffersonian values are best expressed through an organized political party. The Jeffersonian party was officially the "Republican Party" (political scientists later called it the
Democratic-Republican Party to differentiate it from the later Republican Party of Lincoln).[9]

It was the duty of citizens to vote and the Jeffersonians invented many modern campaign techniques designed to get out the vote. Turnout indeed soared across the country.[10] The work of
John J. Beckley, Jefferson's agent in Pennsylvania, set new standards in the 1790s. In the 1796 presidential election, he blanketed the state with agents who passed out 30,000 hand-written tickets, naming all 15 electors (printed tickets were not allowed). Historians consider Beckley to be one of the first American professional campaign managers and his techniques were quickly adopted in other states.[11]

The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community—it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most
anti-Federalists from 1787–1788 joined the Jeffersonians.[12]

The
yeoman farmer best exemplifies
civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences—government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the "cesspools of corruption" and should be avoided.[17]

The
United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, as Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation".[18]

All men have the right to be informed and thus to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.[19]

The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress. The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice
John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.[20]

Britain was the greatest threat, especially its monarchy, aristocracy, corruption and business methods—the
Jay Treaty of 1794 was much too favorable to Britain and thus threatened American values.[23]

At least in the early stages of the
French Revolution, France was the ideal European nation. According to Michael Hardt, "Jefferson's support of the French Revolution often serves in his mind as a defense of republicanism against the monarchism of the Anglophiles".[24] On the other hand, Napoleon was the antithesis of republicanism and could not be supported.[25]

Louisiana and the Mississippi River were critical to American national interests. Control by Spain was tolerable—control by France was unacceptable. See
Louisiana Purchase.

The militia was adequate to defend the nation. During the Revolutionary War previously, a national conflict, in this case the
War of 1812, required the creation of a national army for the duration of international hostilities.

Westward expansion

Territorial expansion of the United States was a major goal of the Jeffersonians because it would produce new farm lands for yeomen farmers. The Jeffersonians wanted to integrate the Indians into American society, or remove further west those tribes that refused to integrate. However Sheehan (1974) argues that the Jeffersonians, with the best of goodwill toward the Indians, destroyed their distinctive cultures with its misguided benevolence.[27]

The Jeffersonians took enormous pride in the bargain they reached with France in the
Louisiana Purchase of 1803. It opened up vast new fertile farmlands from Louisiana to Montana. Jefferson saw the West as an economic safety valve which would allow people in the crowded East to own farms.[28] However, established New England political interests feared the growth of the West and a majority in the
Federalist Party opposed the purchase.[29] Jeffersonians thought the new territory would help maintain their vision of the ideal republican society, based on agricultural commerce, governed lightly and promoting self-reliance and virtue.[30]

The Jeffersonians' dream did not come to pass as the Louisiana Purchase was a turning point in the history of
American imperialism. The farmers with whom Jefferson identified conquered the West, often through violence against Native Americans. Jefferson himself sympathized with Native Americans, but that did not stop him from enacting policies that would continue the trend towards the dispossession of their lands.[31]

Economics

Jeffersonian agrarians held that the
economy of the United States should rely more on
agriculture for strategic commodities than on
industry. Jefferson specifically believed: "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if He ever had a chosen people, whose breast He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue".[32] However, Jeffersonian ideals are not opposed to all manufacturing, rather he believed that all people have the right to work to provide for their own subsistence and that an economic system which undermines that right is unacceptable.[33]

Jefferson's belief was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers who relied on others for income and sustenance. The workers would no longer be independent voters. Such a situation, Jefferson feared, would leave the American people vulnerable to political subjugation and economic manipulation. The solution Jefferson came up with was, as scholar Clay Jenkinson noted, "a graduated income tax that would serve as a disincentive to vast accumulations of wealth and would make funds available for some sort of benign redistribution downward" as well as tariffs on imported articles, which were mainly purchased by the wealthy.[34][35]

Similarly, Jefferson had
protectionist views on international trade. He believed that not only would economic dependence on Europe diminish the virtue of the republic, but that the United States had an abundance of natural resources that Americans should be able to cultivate and use to tend to their own needs. Furthermore, exporting goods by merchant ships created risks of capture by foreign pirates and armies, which would require an expensive navy for protection.[36] Lastly, he and other Jeffersonians believed in the power of embargoes as a means to inflict punishment on hostile foreign nations. Jefferson preferred these methods of coercion to war.[37]

Limited government

Jefferson's thoughts on limited government were influenced by the 17th century English political philosopher
John Locke (pictured).

While the Federalists advocated for a strong central government, Jeffersonians argued for strong state and local governments and a weak federal government.[38] Self-sufficiency, self-government and individual responsibility were in the Jeffersonian worldview among the most important ideals that formed the basis of the
American Revolution. In Jefferson's opinion, nothing that could feasibly be accomplished by individuals at the local level ought to be accomplished by the federal government. The federal government would concentrate its efforts solely on national and international projects.[39] Jefferson's advocacy of limited government led to sharp disagreements with
Federalist figures such as
Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson felt that Hamilton favored
plutocracy and the creation of a powerful aristocracy in the United States which would accumulate increasingly greater power until the political and social order of the United States became indistinguishable from those of the Old World.[38]

Politics and factions

The spirit of Jeffersonian democracy dominated American politics from 1800 to 1824, the
First Party System, under Jefferson and succeeding presidents
James Madison and
James Monroe. The Jeffersonians proved much more successful than the Federalists in building state and local party organizations that united various factions.[40] Voters in every state formed blocs loyal to the Jeffersonian coalition.[41]

Randolph was the Jeffersonian leader in Congress from 1801 to 1815, but he later broke with Jefferson and formed his own "
Tertium Quids" faction because he thought the president no longer adhered to the true Jeffersonian principles of 1798.[43] The Quids wanted to actively punish and discharge Federalists in the government and in the courts. Jefferson himself sided with the moderate faction exemplified by figures such as Madison, who were much more conciliatory towards Federalism.[36]

After 1830, the principles were still talked about but did not form the basis of a political party, thus editor
Horace Greeley in 1838 started a magazine, The Jeffersonian, that he said "would exhibit a practical regard for that cardinal principle of Jeffersonian Democracy, and the People are the sole and safe depository of all power, principles and opinions which are to direct the Government".[45]

Jefferson and Jeffersonian principles

Jeffersonian democracy was not a one-man operation. It was a large political party with many local and state leaders and various factions, and they did not always agree with Jefferson or with each other.[46]

Jefferson was accused of inconsistencies by his opponents.[47] The "Old Republicans" said that he abandoned the Principles of 1798. He believed the national security concerns were so urgent that it was necessary to purchase Louisiana without waiting for a Constitutional amendment. He enlarged federal power through the intrusively-enforced
Embargo Act of 1807. He idealized the "yeoman farmer" despite being himself a gentleman plantation owner. The disparities between Jefferson's philosophy and practice have been noted by numerous historians. Staaloff proposed that it was due to his being a proto-
Romantic;[48]John Quincy Adams claimed that it was a manifestation of pure hypocrisy, or "pliability of principle";[49] and Bailyn asserts it simply represented a contradiction with Jefferson, that he was "simultaneously a radical utopian idealist and a hardheaded, adroit, at times cunning politician".[50] However, Jenkinson argued that Jefferson's personal failings ought not to influence present day thinkers to disregard Jeffersonian ideals.[51]

Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a European nobleman who opposed democracy, argues that "Jeffersonian democracy" is a misnomer because Jefferson was not a democrat, but in fact believed in rule by an elite: "Jefferson actually was an Agrarian Romantic who dreamt of a republic governed by an elite of character and intellect".[52]

Historian
Sean Wilentz argues that as a practical politician elected to serve the people Jefferson had to negotiate solutions, not insist on his own version of abstract positions. The result, Wilentz argues, was "flexible responses to unforeseen events ... in pursuit of ideals ranging from the enlargement of opportunities for the mass of ordinary, industrious Americans to the principled avoidance of war".[53]

Historians have long portrayed the contest between Jefferson and Hamilton as iconic for the politics, political philosophy, economic policies and future direction of the United States. In 2010,
Wilentz identified a scholarly trend in Hamilton's favor:

In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers'
arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property.[54]

^Jeffrey L. Pasley, "'A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics': John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning," Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp. 531–69
in JSTOR

These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich . ... The Rich alone use imported article, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man ... pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing.